MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375835104 · doi:10.1353/phx.2021.0039

Faire voir: Études sur l'enargeia de l'Antiquité à l'époque moderne ed. by Florence Klein and Ruth Webb

2021· article· fr· W4375835104 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Flora Iff-Noël

Bibliographic record

VenuePhoenix · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClassical Antiquity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoetryScholarshipArtHumanitiesRhetoricArt historyHistoriographyLiteraturePhilosophyHistoryTheologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Faire voir: Études sur l'enargeia de l'Antiquité à l'époque moderne ed. by Florence Klein and Ruth Webb Flora Iff-Noël Faire voir: Études sur l'enargeia de l'Antiquité à l'époque moderne. Edited by Florence Klein and Ruth Webb. Villeneuve d'Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion. 2021. Pp. 293, ills. This collective volume, which presents the proceedings of a two-day conference at Tourcoing in 2014, analyzes the theory and practice of enargeia and its relationship to visual art through various case studies from archaic Greece to imperial Rome. It contributes to the constantly growing scholarship on text and image studies since the [End Page 375] 1990s, and more precisely on the connections between the Hellenistic concept of enargeia and ancient art and text.1 Indeed, enargeia, defined as the capacity of words to create the impression that absent things are present to the senses, and in particular to the sense of sight (9; see Quint. IO 6.2.29–32), has already been the object of monographs about Hellenistic poetry, imperial rhetoric, and historiography.2 The present volume aims to fill three gaps in the scholarship by considering the following issues (10–11): 1. How can we study enargeia in archaic and classical Greek texts when there are no contemporary theoretical texts on the matter? Can we identify practices specifically associated with particular literary genres? 2. Even after enargeia's theorization and practice in Hellenistic and Roman times, what is the status of word-created images? Are they effective substitutes to the perception of real objects or deceitful illusions? 3. Especially since the 1950s, scholarship interested in descriptions of artworks has isolated such texts and labeled them ekphraseis, changing the meaning of this word, which was originally used in imperial Greek rhetoric to designate texts full of enargeia, i.e., texts that could "place their object as if under the eyes of their reader or audience" (Aelius Theon, Progymnasmata 118). This volume aims to reconsider such texts within the context of enargeia and to explore the role of enargeia within the reception of real artworks and the production of discourse about them. The book focuses especially on Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Zeuxis, Posidippus of Pella, Moschus, Sallust, Pliny, Ovid, Quintilian, and Pseudo-Longinus. Thus, it is of interest to all classicists, as it tackles rhetoric, poetry, historiography, drama, and art history, both in Greece and in Rome. As all quotes are translated, the volume will also be valuable to scholars of modern literature interested in questions of intertextuality, hypotyposis, text and image studies, as well as for historians, art historians, and university students. The Introduction provides a helpful definition of enargeia and a summary of the various chapters. Chapter One by Pierre Judet de La Combe analyzes the description of fountains in the Iliad (22.145–161). How can we explain the presence of a lengthy description of fountains at the precise moment of Hector's defeat, which is the turning point of the war? Judet de La Combe considers it to have a metapoetic meaning, reflecting on the nature of epic. Chapter Two by Deborah Steiner explores the various interactions between objects and texts inscribed on them by comparing the spectator's real vision of the object to the reader's mental vision of the images evoked by the inscribed texts. She focuses on three archaic inscriptions (IG2 I 919 on the oenochoe of Dipylon, Athens, Archeological Museum 192; a funerary epigram on the cenotaph of Ambracia, SEG 41.450; IG I3 833 [End Page 376] bis on an Athenian marble tripod dedicated by a victorious choral poet). Steiner argues that seeing these inscriptions is an anticipation of the images evoked by the inscription's content. For instance, the letters' disposition sometimes seems to represent the shapes of the dance moves evoked in the inscriptions, as when the letters create effects of symmetry that represent the dancers' symmetrical movements, or when the inscription as a whole is placed below representations of dancers and constitutes a wavy line which mimics the dancers' chorus line. The way these inscriptions are written is meaningful for enargeia and...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhoenixSame topicClassical Antiquity StudiesFrench-language works237,207